Bearing It All...

To mark the anniversary of the 19th Amendment, a crowd of over 200 people gathered to witness 12 dozen scantily-clad women fighting for the right to bear their chests in public this past weekend. These brave women, dawning only strategically placed red tape and bandaids, marched along Venice Beach Boardwalk as part of a larger demonstration organized by gotopless.org. Marches also took place in Miami, New York City, San Francisco, Seattle, Oahu (Hawaii), and Chicago. Men, not to be left out, wore red bikinis to represent the double standard for men and women.

It is currently illegal in California for women to go topless, and some feminists argue that this is yet another example of blatant, institutionalized sexism. Nadine Gary, organizer, argued that "If we are not allowed, men must be forced to hide their chests on the basis of gender equality." Surprising enough, many onlookers agreed. Onlookers were quoted in saying "Women should have the right to express themselves as they want, as long as it doesn't hurt someone else" and "We walk around topless. They should be able to if they want."

I'm genuinely curious about what you all think of this. Is the right to go topless a feminist issue? On one hand, yes. It is obvious. Men are allowed to, women are not. Further, society's obsession with and hyper-sexualization of the breast causes many women to feel ashamed about their own bodies. Clearly, this poses a problem for achieving true gender equality. The cynic in me, however, questions the consequences of such a movement. Would women ultimately be "more free" if California allowed women to not wear tops, or would they continue to be (even more so) objects of men's sexual desires, fantasies, and gaze? What do you think?

Doctor trying to prenatally treat lesbianism? SAY WHAT?!

Yes. You heard right. Dr. Maria New of the Florida International University and her colleague Heino F. L. Meyer-Bahlburg of Columbia University are using the drug dexamethasone on pregnant women in order to prevent their female fetuses from being homosexual or bisexual. Dexamethasone is an experimental drug that is used to try to treat female fetuses with congenital adrenal hyperplasia (CAH), a genetic defect that affects the hormone production of the adrenal glands and in females can result in an increase in androgens and "masculinized" genitals (typically considered to be a clitoris larger than deemed normal). It is a class C drug, which means that it is unknown whether dex can harm a fetus. New and Meyer-Bahlburg believe that one's sexual orientation could be connected to prenatal androgens prenatal stage, and that treatment with dex could be used to change a fetus' sexual orientation.

As if that weren't bad enough, Meyer-Bahlburg goes on to describe the behavior of those with CAH: “CAH women as a group have a lower interest than controls in getting married and performing the traditional child-care/housewife role. As children, they show an unusually low interest in engaging in maternal play with baby dolls, and their interest in caring for infants, the frequency of daydreams or fantasies of pregnancy and motherhood, or the expressed wish of experiencing pregnancy and having children of their own appear to be relatively low in all age groups.” (You can read the article where I got this quote here. It also has a link to the paper where Meyer-Bahlburg said this.) Now, I don't have CAH, but that sounds like normal childhood to me. I hated dolls. I didn't want to be pregnant. I can't ever remember having a "fantasy" of pregnancy. I was perfectly ok with the idea of a stork bringing the baby. That certainly sounded better than the alternative, and what I later found out to be true.

But this research has many consequences (listed in no particular order because they are all frightening).

First, the fact that research like this is even happening is an ethical concern. Many anti-abortion activists will rant and rave about how abortionists are trying to exterminate races by performing "selective race" abortions, but then here we have doctors trying to eliminate different types of sexuality through prenatal treatment. And writing academic papers about it! The ethical implications of "curing" differing sexualities have been debated for decades, but apparently have fallen on deaf ears of New and Meyer-Bahlburg.

Second, this research implies that there is only one normal and acceptable form of female behavior. And that's "I only have one purpose in life, making babies" behavior. So all of you who wanted to be play the doctor instead of the nurse, abnormal female behavior (ironic since Maria New is a female doctor). For all of you who didn't like baby dolls, abnormal female behavior. Those of you who didn't like to play house, abnormal female behavior. This approach completely ignores every single difference between sex and gender, not to mention some of the major points of the women's rights movement. This opens the gates to researching ridiculous gender stereotypes as proven science and biological nature, like trying to prove that girls are genetically predisposed to pink.

Third, it frames LGBTQIA (Intersex and Asexual) people not as human beings, but as diseased inferiors who need to be removed from society. Call me radical, but research like this sounds an awful lot like the beginning of eugenics. This isn't just the regular anti-gay rhetoric you hear from protesters at Pride, or even from some of the more radical anti-gay extremist groups. It's one thing to be called an abomination. It's another to have doctors out there actively working on a cure for you, a vaccine to prevent people like you from existing.

And lastly, (though we could go on and on) it belittles the experiences of those women who have CAH and other intersex individuals. Intersex people face a lot of mistreatment by the medical industry, such as forced gender correction surgeries at birth and throughout their life, constant hormone replacement, and being judged by arbitrary standards that are defined by those who can't understand their position. One measure of whether a woman is intersex is by measuring the length of the clitoris. If it's too big, then she can be deemed intersex and have gender correction surgery where they cut the clitoris down to a "normal" size (this often leaves that individual with limited or no sensation in their clitoris as they grow older). Trying to prenatally treat fetuses so that they do not behave "abnormally" for their gender as prescribed for their sex erases those who may not have a sex recognized by our binary society, even though they're already invisible in our world of only male and female options.

This is some dangerous medicine.
--
Photo Credit: peasap on flickr.com
Cross-posted at Ode to Patriarchy

How big Pharma constructs sexual dysfunction and what this means to both women and men

So, I have a problem. It’s with Flibanserin, the new “female Viagra” – the libido-enhancing drug manufactured by Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, touted to treat “hypoactive sexual disorder in premenopausal women.” And this problem—it is not around the “pink Viagra’s” technical name, but around its politics.

While Feministing’s Vanessa Valenti posts a positive note—that a drug addressing women’s sexual needs represents a positive shift in the medical industry's priorities, she warns that this ‘progress’ lies in the hands of big-pharma.

The Daily Beast's Joan Sewell argues that Flibanserin labels women's lower sex drive as a dysfunction-it unfairly compares male and female sex drives, creating unrealistic expectations of women's sexuality.

And a recent alternet.org article titled “Sex Pill for Women: Big Pharma Trying to Profit from Low Sex Drive?" lists some of the major problems regarding Flibanserin: it must be taken every single day, not just when sexual activity is desired, its long-term safety profile is not yet available, and it and HSDD--the dysfunction it claims to treat--hark back to "the same forces responsible for the terms 'frigid,' 'nymphomaniac,' battles for safe and effective birth control and reproductive health care and social tolerance of violent or degrading pornography -- namely, men defining women's sexuality for their own purposes.”

While safety and dosage concerns should be a top priority, I think that focusing solely on these issues completely overlooks the detrimental and regressive effects of Viagra on female and male sexuality. Flibanserin does not represent a recognition of female sexuality but rather a medicalization of female sexuality. In this way, female sexuality is transferred from the private to the public realm—it becomes an issue of the social body (ooohhh so Foucauldian it makes my skin shiver!). It is simply another way to control sexuality, another way to impose distinctions on what is right and wrong, or what is healthy and what is dysfunctional.

Instead of critiquing the name, instead of critiquing the safety concerns and the dosage (which actually lends itself to my argument—in the sense that taking the medication becomes a habitual act controlled by a foreign influence, the medication becomes part of the body’s functioning, and the act becomes a normalized, controlled routine of living), we should criticize the reach of science and medicine (and the state) into our personal, private lives—dictating what is normal or acceptable (for example, policies that encourage the nuclear family or that deny women reproductive freedom).

Now, this doesn’t only concern women, but men as well (remember the male Viagra pill?). In asserting the existence of a normal, healthy sexuality (or, to name another example, the existence of a “standard” way of acting, dressing, engaging in social relations—conforming to societal norms), you guarantee that most people will fall either to the left or the right of the center: you guarantee a base of ‘dysfunctional bodies,’ and in essence, a base of consumers (think everyday actions—we are sold specific products that help to mask or rid us of our "abnormalities," from weight to skin tone).

Both the male and female Viagra pills assert that a specific type of sexuality is normal—and it (strangely?) speaks to gender stereotypes. For example, the male Viagra pill asserts that men must be sexually vigorous in the form of a type of dominance, a control over one's erection (the pill targets blood flow), while the female Viagra pill asserts that women must be sexually and emotionally up-to-speed with their partner. That’s right, I said “emotionally” as well, and the reasoning behind this is that Flibanserin does not work to increase blood flow to the clitoris, but works on sexual desire by targeting dopamine and serotonin.

On June 18th, the FDA voted against approving Flibanserin for use in the United States. This, however, does not mean very much—sexuality is still in the realm of the medical industry and of Big Pharma. In order to resist this medicalization, I say lets celebrate our sexuality! I am not a hypo- or hyperactive sexual body, I do not need to be poked, prodded, and diagnosed. I will not feel shame for having too little or too much sex as defined by society, and I will not blame myself for the actions of others.

Photo credit: Brooks Elliott on Flickr

One Place I DON'T Need a GPS

I don't like stupid products. As an environmentalist opposed to waste, senseless consumption and the human rights violations incurred on the world as a by-product of consumerism, stupid products represent one of the highest forms of waste, extreme consumption, and (That rant will start with agricultural factory workers being poisoned by the chemicals they work with and not even getting paid a living wage in Venezuela [which, since factory jobs there are overwhelmingly occupied by women, is something I consider a feminist issue], point out Italy's laws that prevent immigrants from the Phillippines from getting jobs outside of the menial service sector [which, since stereotypes about women's roles prevent men from being able to get jobs as caretakers, means that women are the ones being exploited and limited are primarily women], and may end up with Das Kapital and GMOs. You are warned.)

Just a few days ago, however, BUST Magazine had a blog post about this creepy piece of work: GPS IN LINGERIE.

The gps device is SEWN INTO the bodice, and a password is required to find out where that specific gps signal is located.

So Let's decompress the "pros" and "cons" of a product such as this:
Pros:

Your significant other will never have to wonder where you are! In case, you know, they have control issues and want to stalk you.

It does turn off.

In the case the wearer is kidnapped or murdered, she could be more easily found

Its a sexy game of hide and seek!

Cons:

HACKERS. PASSWORDS. So much for feeling safer!

My personal opinion is that pagers are not sexy. I imagine it might get in the way of *ahem* activities. But, if that's what floats your boat or inflates your intertube, that's chill--riding the metro must be a really fun experience. (okay, humor aside--)

If a significant other wants to know the location of their partner, they should know that through the process of acquiring technology, people-kind have invented this thing called a telephone, whereby they could call and ask about said pertinent information. It would be more communicative, and would lessen the possibility of awkward surprise appearances. Its creepy and controlling if they expect to be able to know where their significant other is at all times.

What is the chance that one will actually be wearing this GPS when they are murdered or kidnapped?

Consider domestic violence situations: what if bodice-wearer goes sonewhere abuser doesn't like--such as a treatment center--but has to face the dilemma of risking anger by turning their GPS off, or anger by going to an "unapproved place"? (Let's assume that if she/he is running away, she will turn the gps off and to avoid being found.)

Consider victims of sex trafficking, and how the only person likely to have that password would be their pimp. Similar concept about needing to run away.

Why does the GPS need to be located in the underwear? It seems to me if one should want a gps somewhere, there are a bunch of other places to put it. Could it be, perhaps, that the placement in the lengerie represents keeping control over female sexuality?

Seriously though, why the creepy factor?

Photo Credit: Chris1h1 on flickr.com

ImMEDIAte Justice! Film screening FOR young women, BY young women

ImMEDIAte Justice, a program for young women to explore reproductive justice issues through documentary-style filmmaking, presents two original reproductive justice films created for and by young women. All are welcome to attend!

FILM 1:
Espie is 17 but she still hasn't had her Quinceañera. Family members disapprove of her relationship with long-time girlfriend, Jess and believe she doesn't deserve this coming-of-age rite. Meanwhile, Espie's good friend Luna anxiously awaits the homecoming of her older sister, as her family reconciles fears about her sister's life and opportunities as a queer woman. Youth get behind the lens to share Espie's much anticipated sweet 15 at 17 and Luna's family reunion in this striking & fresh look at love, family, and growing up queer and female in Boyle Heights.

FILM 2:
Where did you get your sex education? One simple question sends our filmmakers down a rabbit hole of unanswered questions and gaps in young people's knowledge about sex, as youth filmmakers explore the significance of having vital sexual health knowledge withheld.

Saturday, August 29th 2-4pm
USC School of Cinematic Arts Building, Room 110
(On the USC campus. Enter at Hoover Ave and Jefferson Blvd. Turn Right on West 34th Street.
The Cinematic Arts Building will be on your left hand side.)

Hope you can make it! There will be food, interactive activities and prizes!

Sex & Hypocrisy

We've all witnessed more than our fair share of the rhetoric surrounding the HPV shot and its fantastic potential to lead young women and girls to sexual promiscuity.... Boo.

If, in our ever-puritanical society, sexuality is still considered BAD (dirty, sinful, et al.), one might assume that the same uproar would ensue when it was announced that the Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) decided to consider "promoting routine circumcision for all baby boys born in the United States to reduce the spread of HIV...."

Such an uproar has yet to be heard. As blogger KJ Dell'Antonia has noted, "If both procedures might make unprotected sex marginally safer, why is the conversation so different?" I am certainly glad to see the general public in support of taking all measures within our realm to reduce/prevent any STI--my concern lies in the fact that "we" are only ok with it if it directly affects men.

If circumcision can help prevent boys and men from contracting HIV/AIDS by up to 50%, GREAT! If a vaccine can help girls and women reduce the risks of multiple types of HPV that may lead to cancer, PHENOMENAL! Why on earth aren't we doing everything in our power to protect ALL of us?!?

Why do we talk about protecting our daughters and sons from chicken pox, from H1N1, from scraped knees and busted lips...but we refuse to offer equal protection when it comes to one of the most natural inclinations of human nature: SEX!

What do we do about the double standard? How can we get beyond it and actually protect ourselves?

Photo courtesy of flickr.com/Zitona

Sexing it Up in UK Schools

A sex-ed leaflet distributed by the National Health Service of Britain has scandalized much of the country by suggesting to high school students that "an orgasm a day keeps the doctor away".

This new educational campaign tells students about the pleasures of a healthy sex life, and the cardiovascular benefits to a good romp between the sheets, or regular masturbation. The authors of the pamphlet believe that teens in healthy relationships have as much a right to a pleasurable sex life as adults do.

Unsurprisingly many parents, family groups, and teachers are not happy with this particular approach to sexual education, arguing that with rising rates of teen pregnancy and the spread of STIs, this sort of education will only encourage students to have sex at a young age and does not provide any more assurance that they will use contraception to protect themselves. Advocates of the campaign, including author Steve Slack, a director of the Center for HIV and Sexual Health at NHS, argue that if students know the truth about sex, including the good parts, they will be more prepared to make an informed decision about when they are ready to become sexually active, and furthermore will be encouraged to wait until they are sure they will have an enjoyable experience.

Although I agree completely that it is important for teens to have comprehensive sex education and access to contraception, as well as information about the risks of having sex, I can't help but be amused by the idea of educating teens about the benefits of being sexual as well. In the United States you are lucky if you get any sex-education explaining the physiological mechanics of sex, but the physical and mental benefits of intercourse and masturbation? Forget about it! Why are we left in the dark to figure the pleasurable parts of sex out on our own?

Young women are particularly discouraged from exploring the pleasurable parts of sex. As young women, we are not encouraged to masturbate, not encouraged to explore what makes our bodies feel good or bad, and for many women not encouraged to orgasm on our own or during intercourse. Based on my experience, many young women are either too embarrassed, ashamed, or just clueless about thier own bodies to masturbate in high school. Maybe by educating women about how to enjoy sex and masturbation at a young age when the majority of them start to become sexually active would help to take the taboo out of female sexuality, and allow women to develop healthy, safe, and pleasurable sex lives.

From Degrassi to Drake: Does rap's newest addition respect women?

POP CULTURE UPDATE! With a feminist twist of course...

I don't know how many of you are as entirely infatuated with the Canadian television show called "Degrassi: The Next Generation" but it is one of my favorite soap operas. Degrassi's ridiculous drama always ends with the perfect moral message, a la 7th Heaven, and holds absurdly terrible but endearing acting abilities of sweet Canadian actors making it, obviously, the best thing I have ever seen.

My immensely positive experience with the characters of Degrassi lead me to expect only the best from "Drake", or Aubrey Drake Graham, the newest addition to the American rap scene, who plays the wealthy, attractive, but sensitive Jimmy Brooks on "Degrassi". I will admit my initial interest in Drake's, “Best I Ever Had” was entirely fueled by my realization that he was the star of my favorite show but I was further intrigued by the popular opinion that Drake's public appeal and success was based in his “respect for women".

Since popular rap music usually gives me a throbbing headache as the sexist sound waves hit me in the face, I was excited to see that Drake, aka "Jimmy Brooks", was promoting a female friendly rap song.

But, sadly, I was mistaken.

Drake gave up the good natured “Jimmy Brooks” for the American rap scene. His lyrics are simply more of the same with a chorus that sounds kind of like a compliment with “You the F*cking best”, while the "compliment" hinges on the availability and sexual skills of the woman in question.

Drake follows with praising his female companion for withholding sex ("she make me beg for it till she give it up") but only for a time. Would he like her as much if she never actually "gave it up" or wasn't ready for sex?

Asking women to withhold their own sexual desires, but also always be ready to "give it up" when asked, is a constant double standard perpetuated by countless outlets of media today. Drake is not "respecting" women, he is simply demanding women do what he wants or else they won't be "the F*cking best".

Also, you should check out the video Kanye West invented for Drake which even further emphasizes Drake's opinion on what makes a worth while woman.

The implication that women are only successful as partners or girlfriends if they constantly engage in sexual acts or fantasies is one of the most detrimental aspects of pop culture and music today. Young girls grow up believing their worth as a human being is bound up with how attractive men think they are. This idea penetrates race and class and fall upon all women who are subjected to these lyrics.

Obviously, I am disappointed in Drake. But no matter how hard he tries to be the next Lil' Wayne, Drake will always be Jimmy Brooks to me, the nice Canadian boy from Degrassi High who scolded his friend Spinner for treating their gay friend differently, who forgave the man who caused his paralysis,and was an aspiring rapper while trapped in a wheelchair. Maybe if I hold him to this image Jimmy Brooks can make a reappearance in Drake. Until then I suggest watching Degrassi, especially the first few seasons, and ignore Drake until he lives up to his promise of empowering women.